Mail Bag. Wet. Good.

Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:29 am by Bob Cesca

This week’s The Daily Banter mail bag is posted. It’s good and good for you. The questions by way of a preview:

Hey guys, how do you think Romney’s foreign policy would differ to Obama’s? I can’t figure out what the hell he stands for other than being on the same page as Obama on Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan and hating China. I’m not a fan of Obama’s foreign policy. The drone attacks are illegal and outrageous, he’s still in Afghanistan (and Iraq) and he’s done nothing on Israel/Palestine whatsoever. It’s hard to see how Romney could be worse really.
-Sal

What did you think of Chris Rock’s tweet on the 4th? (IF you didn’t see it, he wrote “Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks”). I think he’s a complete dick.
-Ed

Alright guys, non politics question: You think Tom Cruise gay? That scientology bullshit is a gigantic smoke screen for something. Either he likes dudes or he’s working for the CIA. And that David Miscavige character, he’s a psycho. Oh man, they’re gonna come after me now….
-Paul

Read our answers here.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in The Daily Banter and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • i_a_c

    We’re still in Iraq?

    Actually that’s a line I hear a lot from the Greenwald/FDL crowd, that we are “still there” or that we have so many ever mercenaries or what have you. What they’re actually talking about are the employees of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The “mercenaries” are actually contractors for security, bodyguards, etc. at the embassy.

    Maybe there’s a legitimate point to be made about the size of the huge embassy (which employs 15,000 people) or something like that, but far too often it’s used inappropriately for Obama-bashing. If there’s going to be an embassy, it’s foolish not to provide appropriate security. There is no more military presence in Iraq.

    • JMAshby

      Yeah, that first question is very Greenwaldian.

      And what exactly is an American president suppose to do when the Israelis’ belligerence prevents them from agreeing to damn near anything.

      • i_a_c

        When he first was inaugurated, the president and Sec. Clinton tried to take a tougher stance toward Israel, supporting a two-state compromise.

        Of course, the president has gotten zero help from the Republican Party, who believes that “politics stops at the water’s edge” only when one of their guys occupies the White House. After Democrats lost the House in 2010, Eric Cantor cowardly met with Netanyahu and told him that the GOP would place a “check” on the president’s foreign policy. The Republicans roll out the fucking red carpet for Netanyahu to address Congress, but jeer and heckle the President of the United States.

        So in a sense, yes, the president had to acquiesce on Israel, partially because he was getting trashed by GOP lapdogs at home, and partially because Netanyahu is an asshole. He knows he can fuck with our politics and he does.

        I don’t have a “favorite” in the I/P situation. Both sides are at fault from my vantage point, though admittedly I’m not as well read as I could be on the subject. I just know I’m sick to death of all their bullshit and having to deal with it halfway around the world.

  • http://twitter.com/JimmyAbra Jimmy Abraham

    Chez, excellent choice with La Fin Du Monde!